The Language Is Why We Keep Losing [Reader Post]

If this last election taught us anything, it’s that the left has achieved a mastery of manipulating the English language to make stances that are unappealing to most Americans seem reasonable. We saw this in full display as throughout the 2012 presidential campaign where whatever talking points the left used to describe their causes were dutifully amplified in the mainstream press. It really is a clever tactic to automatically start the conversation by seemingly placing themselves in the reasonable position while painting any opposition to debates framed as “war” or “rights” as the irrational or bigoted side. Here are a few examples of terms we’ve seen used by the left and their true meaning:

Reproductive Freedom – A 30 year old future one percenter who does not want to pay for condoms feels you that should be forced to buy her birth control pills and/or abortions, and create a dishonest talking point that is in reality insulting to women

Equal Pay for Women – Accomplishing nothing more than taking existing anti-discrimination laws and extending the statute of limitations as a bone to trial lawyers, and create a dishonest talking point that is in reality insulting to women

Women’s Issues – Any issues that only pertain to birth control paid for someone else or abortions. Basically the sexist notion that women can’t think beyond their “lady parts” and should leave those other issues for the men to handle

Marriage Equality – Gay marriage

Economic Patriotism – Raising taxes on somebody other than you

Voter Suppression – Insisting that voters be required to form the same level of ID needed to board a plane, buy alcohol, cash a check, etc. Basically, disenfranchisement of people backing the other party who are only allowed to vote once.

Energy Independence – Forcing the American people to ignore inexpensive, job creating domestic energy sources and to use expensive, government subsidized inefficient energy sources that rely on imported rare-earth metals

Investment in the Energy Technologies of Tomorrow – Federal Government spending on solar and wind energy companies who contributed to the Obama campaign

Investment in Education – Federal government throwing money at the states to give to teachers’ unions rather than renegotiate unsustainable contracts.

Investment in the cars of tomorrow – Federal government throwing money at various auto makers to give to the UAW rather than renegotiate unsustainable contracts.

Extremist – Any viewpoint that contradicts leftist dogma

Moderate – Leftist, or any Republican who criticizes conservative principles

Sensible – Leftist

Partisan – Any disagreement with an opinion held by President Obama

Protecting Our Nation’s Children – Restricting law abiding parents’ ability to protect their children

Tax Increases on Working Class Families- The money not collected by someone wealthier than you somehow equates an expense the middle class has to pay (It seems that there are no accountants on the left who understand the difference between income and expenses)

Ending Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid as We Know It – How to criticize anyone who brings that biased, partisan concept known as mathematics into any discussion of entitlement reform, other than raising taxes on the wealthy of course.

And it hasn’t stopped just because the election is over. One morning after the shootings in Newtown I tuned in to MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” leftist round table where one of the members suggested that “We need to change the language of this argument! Instead of Gun Rights we should be calling it Gun Sense!”

After I started writing this Victor David Hanson wrote a great piece on the need for Republican Populism to explain why conservative policies are ultimately better for society as a whole. Unfortunately in the leftist echo chamber of the mainstream media rather than look at the realities that Hanson outlines these leftist phrases get repeated constantly, and sadly there are no “journalists” or conservative leaders who are willing to challenge these distorting statements. Since I doubt anyone on the right is ready to take up the fight over these terms, I thought I’d offer a few for conservatives to start using to do their part to improve the accuracy of the conversation:

Repeal of the Clinton tax Increases: The Bush tax cuts

Weather: Climate Change

Energy Independence – Relying on our nation’s natural resources, and maybe Canada’s as well, while allowing the religious folks who like inexpensive, inefficient energy to still choose to use it.

Locally Grown Energy: Natural gas, coal, offshore oil, and any other energy produced in the United States. I can’t remember the person on Twitter to attribute this to, but the tweet said something to the effect of, “Why is buying local good with everything but energy?” And that is a very good question.

Fiscal Reality – This is what we had been calling the Fiscal Cliff/ Sequester. All that the FC did was advance our date with reality, so why couldn’t we discuss it as such?

Economic Patriotism – Passing a budget and explaining to the American people how any deficits are going to realistically get paid, and who will end up paying them. Or, in the case of our current administration, educating oneself as to the concept of what a budget actually is for starters.

Too Big to Fail – Our government. Any discussion attacking a specific business or industry should immediately be redirected to the government bodies that enable them, and are most likely far bigger than the business that said government is enabling.

Ending Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid as We Know It – Assuming that our entitlement programs can survive unchanged and labeling anybody who calls fo reform a partisan ideologue

Legal Discrimination – Any sort of diversity initiative, affirmative action or quota system that is designed to reward members of one group and punish another based on some superficial element, such as gender or skin color.

Paid Lobbyists for the DNC Superpac – Most members of the mainstream press. Hey, if they’re not willing to even try to be objective why give them the title of “journalist”? And out of fairness I’m fine with throwing the same label on the good folks over at Fox News supporting the RNC.

Investment – Private individuals choosing to put money into something with the expectation of gain, usually over a longer term. (OK, that’s the textbook definition. But it has gotten so abused by the left they’ve forgotten the term’s real meaning)

Women’s Issues – The Economy, Foreign Policy, Environmental Law, Education, Health Care, Taxes, Energy – wait a minute… These are the same issues that men care about! What a bizarre notion that men and women should be treated equally!

Racist – Anyone who spent eight years screaming about how terrible the Bush economy was who now blindly praises the Obama economy. Assuming that someone is less capable or intelligent and holding them to lower standards based only on that person’s skin color is insulting at best and disgusting at worst.

Thousand Billion – One trillion. A trillion sounds too simple. If we start repeating that President Obama has added four thousand billion to our debt the magnitude might start to sink in. I can’t remember who the proper citation is for this one – might have been Victor Davis Hanson, although I remember G. Gordon Liddy dropping that terminology back when I’d occasionally listen to his radio show back in the day.

Middle Class and Lower Class Tax Increases – Carbon taxes. Any tax on a good or service that takes a larger percentage out of the incomes of the poor accomplishes this, and at least we can be honest about who would be hit the hardest by such a tax scheme.

Deferred Tax Increases – This is the second most important term that needs to become part of our vernacular. A while back one of the writers at Cafe Hayek defined our current deficits and debt as nothing more that deferred tax increases. This seems to be pretty common sense, since any money that the government spends comes in some form of taxation. Debt is nothing more than a tax increase for which we refuse to assign a payee to at this time. It’s time to stop talking in terms of debt and deficits, as those phrases don’t truly reflect what our federal debt actually is.

Generational Theft – What we are committing against the young people in this country by running up debt that they will be forced to pay.

Protecting the Nation’s Children – Passing a budget and responsibly spending taxpayer money so they don’t have to be economically punished for the debts we’ve amassed.

Sustainable Government – The granddaddy of them all. The Left loves the word sustainable when discussing any issues that they perceive as environmental, but it stops there. Why not use it to discuss our federal debt? Any household that that makes $21,000 per year and spends $38,000 while already having $160,000 in debt isn’t going to consider foregoing $800 per year in increased spending in any way sustainable. So why do we? Stick a few zeroes on the end of each of those numbers and you’re looking at our federal debt. We need to start evaluating what it is we want from our government and how we are going to pay for it.

Is trying to frame the debate in language of your own choosing somewhat obnoxious? Why yes, as a matter of fact it is. But the left has no problem doing it, and it helped them win a critical presidential election. And unless we want the way things are now to become the new normal we’d better start making some changes too.

I threw out my ideas here, and I’m sure you have some too. I know my lefty pals will have some as well, and I’d love to hear them in the comments!

90 Responses to “The Language Is Why We Keep Losing [Reader Post]”

Tom

I expect you’ll find a reason to beat up a great Conservative candidate like Rubio and hand a victory to HRC in 2016.

Good point, Rich. Is there any doubt that a Rubio candidacy will ignite a new “birther” movement? Of course not. He will be deemed too centrist/RINO/Liberal, and the knee jerk response from these people is “oh, he looks different from someone who would live in the American Gothic farmhouse, how can we exploit that, how can we destroy him?”. We’ve obviously seen it before.

ilovebeeswarzone

Tom

Have no idea what you’re talking about, but be my guest. If there’s any doubt that what what I wrote is already real, I can produce a Rubio “birther” argument from the comments section of this very blog. Funny, you’re all over every thread, including that one, but I don’t recall you arguing against it. In fact, I think you called it “the truth”.

ilovebeeswarzone

Richard Wheeler

@Tom: Bees is absolutely clueless which is why she’s so much fun.
Now and then she gets very agitated and stings. I continue to remind her that her nasty threats demean her otherwise charming naivety.She buzzes from one post to another. Absolutely no rhyme or reason other than to spout Fox News and “defend her friends at F.A.”
Truly ya gotta love her.What else can you do?

Richard Wheeler

@Brother Bob: Actually I enjoyed reading both of your referenced blogs. True enough you were one of the few Repubs. who didn’t buy the phony polls coming from the likes of Rove and Morris pre-election–Kudos
A little simple on the 350,ooo FIVE state swing to beat BHO. Final count closer to 425,000 but more importantly its pure cherry picking and unrealistic. BHO could strategically take 300,000 and win Mizzou,North Carolina and Indiana and make it a landslide.
The truly close elections,as you know, were 2000 less than 1000 votes in ONE state(Fla.) and 2004 less than 125,000 votes in ONE state (Ohio) making the difference.

Btw The beatdown of Marco Rubio, your best chance of beating HRC in 2016,has already begun here at F.A. The DNC thanks you.

retire05

The beatdown of Marco Rubio, your best chance of beating HRC in 2016,has already begun here at F.A.

While there is no doubt that HRC is running, what makes you think that Democrats will want her any more in 2016 than they did in 2008? Is it because the only other possible Democrat candidates are all either total idiots or way past their prime now?

And do you have some crystal ball that tells you that in 3 1/2 years the nation will be at a point where another Democrat is even wanted by Americans who, quite possibly, will still be struggling under the new norm of 8% unemployment, only sustained by dropping people from the work force rolls?

Mario Rubio has recently made some bad decisions, especially throwing his lot in with the two biggest RINOs going, John McCain and Lindsey Graham. He would have been better off going it alone.

Richard Wheeler

@retire05: Not at all what you said? O.K. You said ‘throwing his lot in with the two biggest RINOS going John Mac and Lindsey Graham.” We’ll keep an eye on your future evaluations of the Conservative who has the best chance of beating HRC.

retire05

O.K. You said ‘throwing his lot in with the two biggest RINOS going John Mac and Lindsey Graham.”

Obviously you seem to think that if I connect Rubio to the “two biggest RINOs going” that means I think he is also a RINO. Without spin, you progressives would be mute.

We’ll keep an eye on your future evaluations of the Conservative who has the best chance of beating HRC.

We? Who’se “we?” You have a rat in your pocket or do you now speak for others? Again, I ask, do you have a crystal ball that tells you that HRC will take the nomination in 2016, when she wasn’t wanted in 2008 by the Democrat voter, or is it that the rest of the Democrat field is so pathetic she is all you clowns have to offer?

Three and a half years is an eternity in the policial world, Richard. And Hillary has seen a sea-change in support, especially after Benghazi. Perhaps you should read some of the blogs that were in her corner in ’08 and see how disappointed they are in her now.

As to Rubio; he’s needs to re-establish that he is his own man. His votes “aye” for Hagel and Brennan are not going to help him. I have noticed that he is seemingly putting some distance between himself and McCain/Graham. That is good. Since McCain recently came out for more stringent background checks for the purchase of a fire arm, it will be interesting to see how Rubio comes down on that issue.

Richard Wheeler

@retire05: You are so far right on the political spectrum you can’t or won’t see the way the majority of American voters view the issues and the candidates.
Polls show if an election held today HRC beats any Repub. candidate by double digits. Agree 3.5 years a long time but I’ll stay with my long held position that Rubio will be the next Conservative POTUS.
BHO barely sqeezed out a win over HRC in 2004 because she and Bill miscalculated the changed Dem. primary system For first time was proportional vs. winner take all. HRC won almost all the large states–Cal.,N.Y,Tex.,Mass. but had to share votes proportionately with BHO–BIG MISCALCULATION .HRC would also have beaten Mac.
Believe it or not there are a few people here who read your comments.One recently discredited your claim that BHO was polling lower in ME than Bush in 2008.

Believe Rubio is his own man and to his credit will not vote the straight right wing agenda. That is why he is electable if Repubs. get behind him. I don’t believe Paul can win—we’ll see.

retire05

You are so far right on the political spectrum you can’t or won’t see the way the majority of American voters view the issues and the candidates.

So says someone who resides on the far left.

Polls show if an election held today HRC beats any Repub. candidate by double digits

The only polls I have seen compare HRC to Jeb Bush or Rubio in Florida. Perhaps you would like to link polls that compare her to “any” Republican candidate on a national level?

Agree 3.5 years a long time but I’ll stay with my long held position that Rubio will be the next Conservative POTUS.

You mean like how every talking head in 2005 just knew that HRC would take the nomination in 2008?

BHO barely sqeezed out a win over HRC in 2004 because she and Bill miscalculated the changed Dem. primary system

What change? The Democrat caucus system was initiated by Bob Beckel (whore monger) and Susan Ethridge to block Jesse Jackson, Sr. How many years ago has that been? Also, there was a lot of corruption in the 2008 primaries, and HRC didn’t bother to challenge that except in Texas, where she won the primary by 100,000 votes, in spite of the fact that Politico reported otherwise. I watched, in horror I might add, as Donna Brazil rules that Obama had the right to take primary votes in a state where he wasn’t even on the ballot, and the DNC did nothing about that. If the DNC wanted HRC, that would not have happened.

Believe it or not there are a few people here who read your comments.One recently discredited your claim that BHO was polling lower in ME than Bush in 2008.

You know, Richard, you have all the debate skills of a 3rd grader who screams “My daddy can bet up your daddy.” You constantly try to drag others into the discussion. Like I said, you seem to not have the cajones to stand on your own.

ilovebeeswarzone

retire05
yes, I also think of all the conservatives CANDIDATES, WHERE ASSAULTED,
first among each other publicly, which was poison for the PEOPLE WATCHING THE BRAWL,
CONSERVATIVES AGAINST CONSERVATIVES,
then again by the CONSERVATIVES BLOGS and comments some vicious,
read by many PEOPLE,
THEN BIAS QUESTIONED BY THE MEDIAS SOLD TO OBAMA,
THEN AS THE LAST FEW RISE FOR THE TOP CHOICE THE SHOCK PUBLICITY PACK
FROM HELL DEMS AND OBAMA SPONSERED, CAME IN FOR THE KILL,
AND ALL THIS TIME OBAMA FREE FROM ALL WHAT THEY CALLED ” VETTING”
RUN OUT FREE AS A BIRD WHILE SENDING THE PUBLICITY PACKS,
HE HAD THE PEOPLES MONEY TO PAY FOR THE HATE SPIT ON THE CANDIDATES,
NO ONE CHALLENGE HIS BIRTH RIGHT TO BE PRESIDENT, NO ONE CHALLENGED THE MONEY COMING FROM HATERS COUNTRIES, NO ONE ASK HIM TO ANSWER WHY HE WENT TO PAKISTAN WHEN IT WAS BAN, AND BY THE WAY WHAT DATE DID HE GO THERE ?
ANYONE ASK HIM.
AND THE BEAT GOES ON,
BUT PLEASE DON’T ANYONE TAKE US FOR FOOLS, WE KNOW MORE THAN WE SAY.

Richard Wheeler

@retire05: You’re joking right You a debater? C’mon–You are consistently wrong and you are called out by other bloggers, You blame me for that? You make erroneous assertions, are called out, and you slither away to another post.
You seem to think the dislike you engender in others has something to do with me.
I actually find you harmless and mildly amusing.

Richard Wheeler

retire05

Did I say I was? Why no, Richard, I did not. I said that you debate like a 3rd grader.

You are consistently wrong and you are called out by other bloggers, You blame me for that? You make erroneous assertions, are called out, and you slither away to another post.
You seem to think the dislike you engender in others has something to do with me.

And again, like the cajoneless person you are, you want to drag the opinions of others into a strictly one-on-one issue between you and me. Other people this, other people that. All you are showing is that you cannot take someone on alone, but want to recruite others to come to your defense. Pathetic.

retire05

Bees, I was the one that corrected retire05’s claim that Obama’s numbers were lower than Bush’s.

retire05: But golly gee, that “Arab Spring” thing is not working out very well, is it? Seems his approval rating among Muslim nations is less than George W. Bush’s was.

retire was citing the Pew poll via the pundits presentation of it. However the Pew study has a section devoted just to polling Obama, called “Global Opinion of Barack Obama”.

Isolating the opinions on Obama alone, and not the US, shows that he polls higher than Bush in 13 of the 14 countries that have Bush vs Obama numbers to compare. The 14th country, Pakistan, has Obama’s rating as 7%, which is the exact same as Bush’s in 2008. So the statement that Pew proved Obama’s approval rating among those Muslim countries is less than Bush’s is incorrect. What is correct is that Obama’s ratings have come down since his first term. But not lower than Bush’s.

Facts always tend to be pesky things. And you generally will not find them only by reading the pundit’s summary of a poll.

ilovebeeswarzone

MATA
YES I read that one, but that was not an attack on him,
it was a correction,
and anyone know you always have the right facts,
but rw and tom pair up to insult him, just for their fun to have his replye,
which is cowardly on a person,

Richard Wheeler

@retire05: No problem– Since you went public in 2011 just thought Bees might also want to know a 73 year old woman was behind your moniker. I actually prefer Ladies, something you’ll never be confused with.

Why are you so consumed by cajones? Can’t find a guy? Maybe you’d do better with gals like you.

retire05

Since you went public in 2011 just thought Bees might also want to know a 73 year old woman was behind your moniker.

And that matters why?

I actually prefer Ladies, something you’ll never be confused with.

Ladies of the night, mostly, I surmise. You know, Richard, when you talk about your treks on the beach, I think of the alcohol commercial that shows a big beer bellied man in a Speedo walking down the beach thinking he is the hottest thing going.

Am I a “lady?” Not when it comes to liars like you, a lousy example of a Marine and a great example of the reason your state is rapidly failing.

ilovebeeswarzone

Richard Wheeler
it’s not retire05 who went public on that, and it doesn’t make a difference,
it’s the respect of the person you don’t have, every one has a right to opinion,
without being insulted, and retire05 wil l not take insult from any one
without call you on it, rightly so,
you and TOM HAVE A BAD HABIT TO PICK ON HER, IT IS TOO OBVIOUS WHY,
AND YOU GET WHAT YOU ASK FOR,
THAT IS A COWARD WAY SPECIALY FOR A MARINE, TO TEAM UP
AND BASH ONE PERSON CHARACTER,

Richard Wheeler

@ilovebeeswarzone: Bees In Oct 2011 Reto5 Volunteered she was a 71 year old woman. She also talked about how tough she was.
She sees herself as a tough old Texas mudslinger. Loves to personally insult anyone who disagrees with her.–I find her hilarious—That picture Aye posted–even she found it funny.

retire05

Liar. You are constantly referring to “others” who disagree with me, when you are trying to point out that you disagree with me. Why is that? No cajones, Richard? Need to use the example of “others” in order to make yourself feel better about being a total smuck?

Why are you so consumed by cajones?

Maybe because you’re the first Marine I’ve ever heard of that didn’t have any.

Richard Wheeler

@retire05:I’m sorry many on here have called you an old bigot and worse—I didn’t encourage them–they did it on their own–and they are mostly Conservatives.
I laugh at your insults. You are a sad old woman.

ilovebeeswarzone

I think we bring our frustrations in our blog,
it’s better than pick on a spouse or worse a child,
or a friend, or our dogs
but we get also attach NOT ATTACK,to the regular one commenting and
exchanging comments on each other,
it’s normal to not always be on the same side, but we need to discipline ourselves to
never shoot below the belt, because we get shot too,and the result,
is we are dead zombies commenting,
I LOVE MY BLOG, I’m here on many POSTS because they are so interesting and demand reply, WHAT A GOOD GROUP
and CONSERVATIVES GIVE SO MUCH INTELLIGENCE IN COMMENTS HERE,
you start and get taken by the POST FROM DIFFERENT AUTHORS AMONG MANY,
FLOPPING ACES MY FRIEND THANK YOU,
CURT YOU’RE A GENIUS

Richard Wheeler

@retire05: Lets be clear. I have never lost a battle to you– You’re too easy. However Proverb say ” If one person calls you an ass disregard him. If a number of people call you an ass, BUY A SADDLE” Large and Red just for you.